Think Before You Commit - Is a 4IP project for you?

[Simon Meek]

Ok, so I'm going to write a pretty controversial blog - but one that I think needs to be written. I'm keen to get a discussion around this (and state at the outset that this is a thought of mine and does not intend to reflect anything other than my own views).

No one will deny that 4IP and the potential money it brings with it is not an incredibly appealling prospect. You can see by the 500+ members on 38 minutes the draw of what 4IP has to offer.

Now, I'm lucky enough to be part of the Digital Media Industry Advisory Group, have close relations with Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Screen and Channel 4 - so I feel that I'm pretty on top of 4IP... but, in reality, this is only an enlightenment of the past month. Hence, my blog now.

Anyway, I'll get to the meat of what I've got to say. To my mind, 4IP is an investment fund - and a fund that is looking to invest in sustainable business models in the online space. This is all well and good. However, the space it occupies is new to many of the companies that are pitching into it.

Now, every project that is pitched needs a 'release' mechanism - the point where the 4IP money is taken away (suppose they're a bit like the stabilisers when you're first learning to ride a bike). What then? This is the point when the 'business' is established and the project must stand on its own two feet. Now, we must all ask ourselves: is what we're pitching for 4IP cash a project that we want to operate as a business in the long-run?

This may seem like a no brainer, but I'm not so sure. We're all twisting and turning to give 4IP what it is that THEY want and I fear that this may be a step-removed from the 4IP community [and the pitcher] wants (if it came to running it as business)... yet at that 'release' point, remember that it is the individual's that will be running the project. So make sure you 100% believe in what it is that you're pitching to the point of commission.

My next point is, therefore, that we should all be careful what we pitch and make sure that we're building on our existing business models and not just scrabbling for cash - because this, after all, is a long term committment. So we should all make sure that we are bringing something to the idea rather than just the idea itself - ie a skill base that makes us the right person to make and sustain the project.

So in short, let's all think about what WE want as much as what 4IP wants and don't get blindsided by cash.

[Claire McArdle]

I have to underline what Stuart has said here in terms of content. 4iP is absolutely interested in participative content, and that doesn't always equate to UGC, although sometimes it might. It's about content that can be engaged with, rather than viewed in a passive manner.

[Mairin Murray]

Thanks Stuart and Simon

Yes I'm deffo back again ;-)

Once the slate of commissioned projects are published I think that will really help too.

[Stuart Cosgrove]

Mairin has summarised 4ip as follows:

"4IP is a bit like a seed fund for web/mobile start-ups with a public service bent and yes there needs to be a sustainable business model? So am I right that you’re not so interested in supporting the delivery of a time bound ‘product’ from an existing company?
No you are wrong the two are not mutually exclusive and we are interested in both. What we re not interested in is time-specific ideas with extended video content, where TV is a more established medium and where C4 invests of £600m annually. It’s not TV on web. Think away from that idea. We get lots of projects that whilst interesting in their own right are covered elsewhere, short film via the web, docs via the web etc etc. We have departments already doing those things.


"4IP aspires to be the first to market with social media applications."That's an attractive thought, but you can also be first in a creative sense rather than in tech/media sense. Social media whether it’s a blog or a social network or a mobile game has no purpose unless it has meaningful communication/participation. There is no technological form without content and/or dialogue and no content without form.

"Many innovative social media web applications don’t have a sustainable business model"
That's true and a complexity we wrestle with daily, but for some of our partners who are often business development agencies we have to try to answer that question even although you are right it is evasive.

4IP is not interested in vertical social media destination sites (as how can these compete with YouTube/Facebook?)"

I don't think that's as blunt or intended to dissuade as it seems, what we don't want to do is build more web sites that have no 'new' purpose, no persuasive ways of attracting user-participants, and no seepage beyond what they offer.

"I’m actually really passionate about vertical social media sites but not sure if 4IP is interested in this space?"

We are too. But not building more for their own sake. Maybe your passion would be better focused on aggregating or finding social recommendation technology to point to the stuff you are passionate about - if it’s great then it’s a shame if it’s lost in the forest. There’s still not a DIGG for great public content, Google remains mass not niche, and Amazon only recommends stuff to buy. Hundreds of opportunities in those market failures alone.

"4IP is not interested in web or mobile content propositions - it’s all about the user generated content or the conversation stupid."

Maybe a clearer way of putting this is that 4iP is supremely interested in content but again not in the way TV is. TV provides deliver content, honed by the producer, and finished at the point of delivery. 4iP is looking for ways, platforms, mechanisms, projects, innovations that can allow content/communication to enrich and not be finished or handed down, but be participative. That’s the real power of the social media era and its one of TV’s proven weaknesses.

I hope all that helps Mairin. Glad your back.

By late January 2009 we will unveil a slate of commissioned projects which will help fill the conceptual vacuum - we are still looking for more. I hope when they arrive it will make it easier to understand. I also hope it’s not ‘too easy to understand because then it will too easily slip into replicated activity, which we don’t want either - if there isn't doubt or difference there won't be innovation.

[Simon Meek]

Hey Mairin,

The main thing - in my mind - is that the projects that we pitch are the projects that we want to pitch and will feel happy running in the long-term, and that we're not just filling 4IP criteria in the hope of getting cash. It seems really obvious, but I don't think it is. We all have to know what we're getting into, because ultimately - in the majority of cases - this is a business investment fund. Also, for those companies who haven't had experience in running websites (obviously not including your company's homepage), it's not cheap and is very labour intensive.

Obviously, the good guys at 4IP will explain all of this in detail - and will provide business support. So we should all be fine :) It is about knowning what 4IP is, and not just seeing it as an opportunity to get cash.

[Mairin Murray]

I've been a bit quiet on 38 minutes recently.

I was about to start 'twisting and turning to give 4IP what it is that they want' so decided I needed some time out… Firstly I began to feel that I was engaged in a process of grant chasing rather than developing innovative projects that I was 100% committed to making happen (regardless of 4IP) and secondly I was and am still unclear and confused by what 4iP want ;-(

These are my perception on what 4IP is about in bold based on writings on blog and various conversations - I may have got it all wrong so please put me right.

* 4IP is a bit like a seed fund for web/mobile start-ups with a public service bent and yes there needs to be a sustainable business model?

So am I right that you’re not so interested in supporting the delivery of a timebound ‘product’ (in the old commissioning model) from an existing company? Any steer on how much emphasis you place on the business plan e.g. size of market, proven revenue model etc etc would be helpful.


4IP aspires to be the first to market with social media applications.

(Ok so now I’m getting confused. Many innovative social media web applications don’t have a sustainable business model but rather an exit strategy along the lines of ‘Buy me Google.)

4IP is not interested in vertical social media destination sites (as how can these compete with YouTube/Facebook?)

(I’m actually really passionate about vertical social media sites but not sure if 4IP is interested in this space?)

* 4IP is not interested in web or mobile content propositions - it’s all about the user generated content or the conversation stupid.

(This causes me more befuddlement as if it’s just about the conversation and dialogue – with no importance given to trigger stimulus content etc- what’s the differentiator to all the social media tools and platforms out there.)

* Again disclaimer that these are my own personal late night views and ramblings.

[Ewan McIntosh]

As we said, earn a fortune or earn a knighthood. But the two needn't be mutually exclusive. And, yes, World Without Oil's legacy would be worth paying for.

[Tulip]

Definitely a good point in my mind. It seems to me we keep hearing on this topic, whether it's Clay Shirky or advertising companies like McCann Erickson - you can't make money from the web and you have to be willing to give things away for free. Bronze Beta - that Buffy fantatics group Clay Shirky talks about - they have money to maintain their site, but never set out with the intention to profit. This is also true of Wikipedia and countless organisations which were set up out of passion rather than monetary interest.

To me the point is - make something brilliant because you're passionate about making it, not because you're hoping to attract X million users (as with broadcast tv), and the sustainable business model will follow...

[Simon Meek]

Cheers Ewan, good to know that I'm speaking sense (hopefully the blog will be good to getting brains ticking over ay?). Agree about the set-time projects too - they don't have a returning financial model, other than - perhaps - a replay value? Or a community that you can take on to your next project? In this case, does 4IP see their involvement in a way more akin to the TV commissioning model - or is there a structure for getting a financial return here in some way? Or is the legacy of such products of World Without Oil enough to warrant 4IP's time and investment?

[Ewan McIntosh]

You're spot on - we *will* leave the party and the idea, though it may have worked well in the first or second phase, needs to be nurtured and taken care of long after. In the ideas that we've seen so far, including those that we're commissioning now, we're helping companies plan for the second, third and even fourth iterations of their projects, including the point we withdraw (which could be really early on). We want the projects to be £ially sustainable, but there are also projects which, after so many days, will die. Naturally. They will be useful, but not necessarily active beyond their natural life. Think "World Without Oil", the game which was played for 38 weeks and is now a reference resource.

One of the most useful things about meeting people is that you get a quick idea for whether they are keen and capable of taking the idea through beyond 4iP. The company or individual is as important as the project.